regard, the Court has held that “As always, the onus of proof is on a party who asserts a fact and who will fail if that fact fails to attain that standard of proof that will persuade the court to believe the statement of the claim” See FEMI FALANA & ANOR V REPUBLIC OF BENIN & 2 OR ECW/CCJ/JUD/02/12 PG. 34. 70. Indeed, having failed to attain that standard of proof, the Respondent’s claim fails, the facts surrounding the claim of the Applicant being more persuasive, the Court holds that the Applicant has established a proprietary interest in the auctioned property. 71. Another issue the Court must address is the argument of the Respondent that the Applicant having known that his property was being mortgaged and took no step to assert his ownership is statute barred and he has lost the property. The basic principle of law regarding proof of ownership is that title and possession go hand in hand. However, under certain circumstances, long uninterrupted possession of property can confer ownership over and above a titleholder. In a recent case, the English Court had this to say, “However, in the English common law tradition, courts have long ruled that when someone occupies a piece of property without permission and the property's owner does not exercise their right to recover their property for a significant period of time, not only is the original owner prevented from exercising their right to exclude, but an entirely new title to the property "springs up" in the adverse possessor. In effect, the adverse possessor becomes the property's new owner. Over time, legislatures have created statutes of limitations that specify the length of time that owners have to recover possession of 27